CO885-(13-15) — Page 79

│ ༴། ། ། །

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.

• 885

That your Lordship was also, as then advised, unable to perceive that it was other- wise than consonant with law, and with the principles of the constitution, and the working of Parliamentary institutions in the Colony.

That Mr. Higinbotham held a different opinion, and that unless your Lordship had failed to apprehend his meaning, appeared to consider that the Governor or other officer administering the Government of Victoria as the Queen's representative was not, unless so requested by the Colonial Ministry, entitled to make any official communica- tion to the Secretary of State, for his own or Her Majesty's information, respecting the local affairs of the Colony, not even respecting the reasons which might have induced him to take or not to take action in a particular matter as the Queen's representative, such for instance as the granting or refusing a dissolution of the Colonial House of Assembly.

That Sir Robert Herbert was therefore to request us to be good enough to consider the accompanying papers, and to favour your Lordship with our opinion,

Whether the system of correspondence above mentioned as hitherto existing between the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's representative in the Government of Victoria was inconsistent with the Colonial Constitution Act, or with any principle of law, or with the principle of the Colonial constitution, or with the working of Parliamentary institutions in the Colony?

That Sir Robert Herbert was also to ask that we would favour your Lordship generally upon the subject, and that we would be good enough to furnish you, at such length as might be convenient, with the reasons for such advice as we might give.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report

That the system of correspondence referred to as hitherto existing between the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's representative in the Colony of Victoria is not inconsistent either with the Colonial Constitution Act, or with any principle of law, or with the principle of the Colonial constitution, or with the working of the Parliamentary institutions in the Colony.

It is scarcely necessary to refer at length to authorities in support of this view, but they are very numerous. To quote the judgement of the Privy Council in the case of Hill v. Bigge in the year 1841 (3 Moore's Privy Council Cases, p. 476), "If it be said "that the Governor of a Colony is quasi sovereign, the answer is that he does not even represent the sovereign generally, having only the functions delegated to him by the terms of his Commission, and being only the officer to execute the specific powers with which that Commission clothes him."

*

•

There have been many other enunciations of the law to the same effect, and the principle has been repeatedly acted upon.

The Right Hon. Lord Knutsford,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.,

(Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER. (Signed) EDWARD CLARKE.

14,194,

No. 123.

(HONG KONG.)

[COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY FIRING HEAVY GUNS.]

EXTRACT from War Office Letter to COLONIAL OFFICE, July 14, 1888.

THE Law Officers of the Crown have now given it as their opinion that a court of law would not restrain gun practice and award compensation for any damages done under the orders of the Government Authorities for bond fide military purposes, and that no legislation on the subject is necessary.

}

A

52950.-27. 25.-7/88.

13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO